Contrastive Investigation of High-Rise Building with Distinctive Infill Wall by Pushover Analysis

Abstract

: Pushover analysis is a method that uses simple nonlinear techniques to predict seismic structural deformations. Today, we use masonry infill in reinforced concrete (R/C) frames for architectural, aesthetic or economic reasons. In this project, we need to study the effect of backfill on the damage structure of the reinforced concrete frame. The main purpose of this study is to show that adding walls to the reinforced concrete frame can increase the strength and stiffness of seismic resistant structure loads and increase the feedback for strength and stiffness analysis. . These instructions strictly comply with FEMA-356. In this project, we use three types of bricks: red brick, fly ash brick, deep brick and siporex brick. Taking the output of non-linear analysis, we compare layer V/S i) Base Shear, ii) Storey Displacement, iii) Floor Shift Base Shear V/S Attack and Observe Spectrum Acceleration V/S spectral function . We also use ETABS 2017 software to study the effects of bare shear walls..

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Today, understanding the seismic behavior of infill walls has gained importance in earthquake engineering. There are many methods used for frame analysis, seismic analysis, i.e. static method, response spectrum analysis, i.e. seismic analysis. linear dynamic method, pushover analysis e.g. Nonlinear static method analysis, time history method, i.e. nonlinear static method Linear dynamic method. But here we use a non-linear static method.The purpose of pushover analysis is to determine and control the performance of structures in earthquakes. In the old version of IS 1893 specifications we did not consider the strength and stiffness of infill walls but in the new version of IS specifications we have to consider the strength and stiffness of infill walls.

In this project, we used a 17-storey wall type structure as a diagonal column. Brick infill wall Equal diagonal buttress

Model l : Only Framed Structure

Model 2 : Model With AAC blocks with Diagonal members

Model 3: Brick infill wall model using fly ash Equal diagonal buttress model

Model 4: Gray brick infill pattern model wall using fly ash Red brick infill wall pattern parallel diagonally.

A. Pushover Analysis

This is a nonlinear static analysis under sustained vertical loads. Here the change is gradually increased from zero to the limit of movement or until the structure can no longer withstand the load. In thrust analysis, we focus on the design of plastic joints and record the failures of different systems and plot the total force against displacement to define the capacity curve.

II. INTENT OF STUDY

1. The effects of different types of masonry infill walls in reinforced concrete frame buildings were examined using pushover analysis.
2. The effect of providing shear walls in reinforced concrete frame buildings was examined using compression tests.
3. To compare the seismic response of buildings including i) base shear, ii) Storey displacement, iii) base shear with ground shear V/S trace displacement and spectral acceleration V/S spectral displacement, FEMA-356 and tip-cycle.
4. Determination of functional elements for the seismic performance of buildings. Determine the best combination of cost-effective methods.

III. OVERVIEW OF THE ANALYSED STRUCTURE

Our Structure is Multi storey building having Ground floor and having 15 floors with storey height of 3 m following table shows details of corresponding model

All paragraphs must be indented.  All paragraphs must be justified, i.e. both left-justified and right-justified.

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

      It is with immense pleasure that we express my sincere sense of gratitude and humble appreciation to Prof. Sapate V.M. for his invaluable guidance, whole-hearted co-operation, constructive criticism and continuous encouragement in the preparation of this thesis. Without his support and guidance, the present work would not be a possible.

Conclusion

1) In the current study investigating the damage behavior of the structure, five test specimens of a 17-storey reinforced concrete framed building were investigated for various masonry infill walls (including red brick, lightweight and fly ash bricks) along with walls of separate structures. . This study provides input for the nonlinear static analysis of a 17-storey building using Etabs 17.0. Based on the analysis, the following measurements were made: Tables II and III show the relevant results for each model. Based on the study of interlayer slippage, the following conclusions were made: • The storey drift changes in the x direction are almost the same for models III and IV, which may be due to the rigid beam of the building in the x direction. As can be clearly seen from the inter-storey drift values in the Y direction, the stiffness changes and the response of the structure changes. • Model IV performs well in the X and Y directions, showing smaller story drift values than all other models, while the bare frame shows higher story drift values, which may be due to the small stiffness and large displacement pressure. • Model I also shows that the X and Y floors vary more than Models IV and II due to the stiffness of the beam-column structure and the absence of infill and shear walls. • Model II also shows that the average drift rate can depend on the number of shear walls in the Y direction, with modifiers applied as specified by Kodal, even if shear is present. 2) Tables 4 and 5 show the conversion process for each model. Based on review of the screening process, the following conclusions were reached: • As can be seen from the table and figure above, Model I performs poorly compared to the other four models, while Model IV performs well with over 60% reduction in variation. This is due to the increased inclusion strength of the red stone in the X and Y directions. • Model II and Model III performed well, with approximately 50% reduction in displacement compared to Model I. • Model V demonstrates a 30% reduction in the X direction and a 12% reduction in the Y direction. This is attributed to the stiffness provided by the shear wall, which has a minimum thickness of 200 mm, with modifiers applied according to IS 1893: 2016. • In all models with infill and curtain walls, reductions occur depending on the installation and material. 3) Tables 6 and 7 show the layer shear force VS analysis results for each model. Based on the cutting force and displacement analysis, the following conclusions were made: • Structure Shows respectively II,III IV and V has performed well in X heading and stand up to max base shear with nearly same relocation than show I which may due to consideration of infill and shear divider. • Structure I appears most extreme firmness in Y course due to exceptionally less relocation. It is fundamentally due to 70% columns are accessible in y course • Model II resists shear in the Y direction less than other models, while Model V resists maximum root shear with negligible hardness. • The infill walls contribute significantly to the stiffness of the building. This is primarily due to diagonal action of infill increases lateral resistance and initial stiffness of the frames and have a significant effect on the reduction of the global lateral displacement. It is essential to consider the effect of masonry infills for the seismic evaluation of moment resisting RC frames, and new RC frame, especially for the prediction of its ultimate state. • It is worth making a good decision to prepare infill and curtain walls during the inspection, because it can distribute a lot of money to the outside without causing serious damage. • Model v shows the maximum stiffness and very small area due to the maximum moment of inertia in the specified direction due to the provision of shear walls. • According to the new Codal regulations, providing shear walls instead of columns will be a better option, but the cost will be lower than SMRF and the use of spare parts. As can be clearly seen from the Model V results, when analyzed in the X and Y directions, it is seen that there is stiffness and the change is very small.

References

[1] IS 1893 (Part 1)–2002, “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provision and Buildings”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. [2] FEMA 356 (2000) “Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA. [3] ATC-40 (1996) “Seismic Analysis and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings”, vol. I, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, USA. [4] Alessandra Fiore, Girolamo Spagnoletti, Rita Greco, “On the prediction of shear brittle collapse mechanisms due to the infill-frame interaction in RC buildings under pushover analysis” Elsevier journals Accepted 20 April 2016. [5] Beatrice Belletti , Cecilia Damoni, Antonello Gasperi “Modeling approaches suitable for pushover analyses of RC structural wall buildings” [6] Kas?m Armagan KORKMAZ, Fuat DEM_R and Mustafa S_VR “Earthquake Assessment of R/C Structures with Masonry Infill Walls” International Journal of Science & Technology Volume 2, No 2, 155-164, 2007 [7] Ning Ning, Dehu Yu, Chunwei Zhang * and Shan Jiang “Pushover Analysis on Infill Effects on the Failure Pattern of Reinforced Concrete Frames” [8] Praveen Rathod, Dr.S.S.Dyavanal, “Pushover Analysis of Seven Storeyed RC Buildings with Openings in Infill Walls” International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 14 Number 3 – Aug 2014

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Prashant Hake, Prof. Vishal Sapate. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.